Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
director mike morrell met with john mccain, lindsey graham and kelly ayotte over what rice knew the in the days after the deadly consulate attack in benghazi. all three claim to be more troubled after this meeting. >> we're significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before that the 16th september explanation about how four americans died by ambassador rice, i think, does not do justice to the reality at the time. >> clearly the impression that was begin, the information begin to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely, it was wrong. >> and within the past hour the white house once again defended ambassador rice. >> focus on some might say obsession made on comments made on sunday shows seems, to me, and to many, to be misplaced. >> and the ambassador herself made this statement only a short time ago. it read in part, quote, i appreciated the opportunity to discuss these issues directly and structurive wi them. the administration remains committed t
of her as a spokesman for the administration. one suspects that senators graham and mccain and ayotte have other reasons for opposing her and are using this as an excuse but it's fairly flimsy because while there are legitimate questions to be asked about what happened in benghazi -- >> but dana, hang on a second. if you have a problem with susan rice, let her be nominated, challenge her, and go through due process. why do this on the basis of intelligence that she had received that's consistent with the information that she was given by the cia? >> not only is it illogical, it is counterproductive because they're putting the president in a position of saying he's going to nominate her if he wasn't before because now he's not going to look like he's caving in or backing down. so they're going to achieve the exact opposite of what they're purporting to want. >> absolutely astonishing. goldie, conservatives, as we know, are attacking ambassador rice for admitting that the initial intelligence was wrong in one respect, that there was no process in benghazi, but she's admitted that the in
there was a no love loss between senators graham, mccain and ayotte. vis-a-vis the u.s./u.n. ambassador. were you surprised susan collins went into a new line of attacks specifically indicting susan rice in the kenyan embassy attacks in the late '90 snz. >> yes. it was surprising. from folks i spoke to on capitol hill involved in national security issues did not see susan collins going into that direction. susan collins is a moderate republican, not one to be known to be an obstructionist in any capacity. she was one of the primary sponsors of don't ask, don't tell repeal when that went through last year. so it's interesting to see susan colin goss on this line of attack saying she doesn't want to see the u.n. ambassador be a political spokesperson like susan rice was on the sunday shows. also opening up the new line of attacks when susan rice was in charge during the attacks in africa. that is something to a chill observer seems like okay, susan collins has done her research, that would be brought up in a confirmation hearing specifically saying why did you fail the country supposedly back in th
. senators ayotte, graham and mccain, republicans who had from the get-go before they talked to her vowed -- or threatened to block her nomination. so that was one thing. today is different because that senator you just played, susan collins, is among the last remaining moderate republicans here. she does have a lot of information about what happened because she is the top republican on the homeland security committee, and she actually has a history of supporting susan rice. she was the one who introduced susan rice when she was at her confirmation hearing for the post she's in now as u.n. ambassador. so the fact that susan collins even has questions, i asked her point blank if she could support rice for secretary of state, and her answer was not yet. she has to have other questions answered. that's not a good sign for rice, but we should underscore a couple of things. one, she hasn't been nominated yet. and, two, she -- rice does have a lot of support from democrats who still have the majority. the issue is whether or not she'll need, if she's nominated, 60 votes to get confirmed. >> wha
graham. you are on the record saying you will not support her if she is nominated for secretary of state. but not just because of libya. what is the problem. >> let me clarify that. my first thought is what if susan rice was thrown under the bus and they all knew she didn't have the information from the cia. then i thought you would have to feel sorry for her. since yesterday talking to some of those to whom she talked i'm convinced in my mind that she is part of the coverup, she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. but your point is very good. i could not support her in the secretary of state if she is nominated. bill: give me a reason why. >> she is on the wrong side of the membership of the u.n. palestinian authority. she is on the opposite side of where i am. she has kept on funding you necessary cowhich is in violation of instructions given to her through law. she is on the opposite side of every issue that i am. for that reason i would have opposed her anyway. bill: it appears to me and many others when we listen to folks like yourself talk that this issue i
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5